Tag Archives: politics media horse race

We rightfully complain about the lack of civility in our contemporary politics. President Trump’s name-calling and insult comedy is more symptom than cause of a greater brokenness—while also giving permission for public incivility.

We rightfully complain that the two political parties don’t get along and seemingly don’t want to get along, that they shout insults at each other. And while this is true, we tend to miss what may be the greater danger and bigger story.

Our political parties themselves are broken and their sharp shards are wounding the American body politic. Both Republicans and Democrats fight amongst themselves with at least as much fervor as they do with each other. There are wars within our two traditional parties, and who will win and how this angry chaos eventually shakes out is unknown and unknowable.

The two big stories, which were not in fact played as big stories, are the failure of Sen Diane Feinstein to win the endorsement of the California Democratic Party at their convention in San Diego and the failure of Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination for Senator at the Utah Republican convention. He needed 60% to win but he got only 49% and finished second! Both Feinstein and Romney are likely to win their primaries, but their spankings by, what used to be called the “party faithful,” bespeaks not simply fissures in our parties but fractures, compound fractures.

These two contests reveal the war for the soul of each party. For Democrats the Progressives reject the center and the old establishment, while the mainstream is more pragmatic than ideological. It is the same story for the Republicans whose mainstream is under attack from its ultra-conservative wing.

Some progressive Democrats shout at former Hillary supporters that they’re not real Democrats and might as well have supported Trump. They question whether it is better to lose with a candidate who incarnates progressive values or to win, as in Alabama, with a candidate who is not pro-choice. The fighting is fierce and often ugly.

Again, it is the same story for the Republicans. The charge of being a RINO. (Republican in name only) is thrown at seasoned and accomplished Republican office holders with derision and animus. They too have to deal with whether to support moderate conservatives who could win, as against flame throwers who might be popular with the hardcore who show up for primaries, but who cannot win the general election. In Arizona nominating former sheriff Joe Arpaio might feel good to the Republican activists but would almost certainly cost the Republicans a Senate seat.

These internecine battles represent a breaking up of historic party coalitions. FDR put together a liberal coalition in the 30s of southerners and urban working class people and ethics. The South was solidly in the Democratic Party till the late 40s when Dixiecrats began to emerge. They were largely resistant to civil rights and liberal northern elites. They evolved into Blue Dog Democrats and finally, under Nixon, became Republicans. The once solidly Democratic South became the reliably Republican South.

New Democratic coalitions emerged and evolved from JFK liberalism to Bill Clinton’s relatively centrist non ideological approach. With the defeats of Gore and Kerry, the Democratic coalition began to go to war with itself. Obama created a short truce (for Democrats) but today there is no Democratic Party.

If Democrats believe they’ll take the House and maybe the Senate in a walkover, they’re wrong. What is their vision? Vision, hell, who is their leader?It’s not Bill, not Hillary. Obama is all but invisible. It’s not the party Chair, Tom Perez, or Vice Chair, Keith Ellison. Who speaks for the Democratic vision?Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi?

Again, the same phenomenon exists in the wind blown Republican tent. President Reagan put together a coalition and attracted may white working class people who had historically been Democrats. They were and are still called “Reagan Democrats,” but this is a misnomer. After 30 years, they are actual Republicans. But Reagan’s coalition is also crumbling. He united fiscal conservatives and Social conservatives. However, obviously, given this year’s budget, the fiscal conservatives (Deficit Hawks) no longer either hold sway or maybe even care. This is not Reagan’s Party. Whose is it? I don’t know. Not Paul Ryan’s, who is retiring. Not Mitch McConnel’s. And not Donald Trump’s. He is not an ideologue or theoretician.

And this brings us back to the chaos of our fractured parties. In the last national election, all the passion on the Democratic side was for Bernie Sanders—an old socialist. Hillary was loved by some, but it was more about the twin ideas that this was her time—she’d earned the nomination—and that this was time for a woman. Her support was more dutiful than passionate. For the Republicans, they fielded about 14 traditional candidates in the primaries and Donald Trump.

Remember that Trump had been a life-long Democrat. Remember that Sanders had never been a Democrat. The traditional centers of parties did not hold and cannot hold. Something new will emerge from the chaos but the birthing process will probably not be pretty, but you can count on it being petty. Yet it is still important that people, of all political and social views work for a good outcome.

I love politics. I love covering the horse race as candidates rise and fall, triumph and fail. I was perversely elated when Sarah Palin resurfaced to endorse Trump. What a gift to satire and farce. I love that the two leading candidates of the moment represent vast differences in both style and substance. Trump obviously owns a comb while Sanders doesn’t. But Trump and Sanders do share something in common. They both pronounce “Huge” as “Yuge.”

I love that money doesn’t buy happiness or elections. Hillary and Jeb both have too much money, and it’s just not buying them any love. John F Kennedy, while campaigning in Texas in 1960, laughed off his father’s money by joking that his father would buy an election but wouldn’t pay for a landslide. Yes, the corrupting influence of money is older than our current events.

I love that Rubio not only repeated the same set piece three times in the Republican debate but the next day repeated a different memorized paragraph 30 seconds apart. The next day he repeated a different memorized paragraph 30 seconds apart. Yes, I just did that on purpose to show how jarring it is. I love that Hillary is attacking Wall Street and claims to know how to reign them in and that $20 million in speakers fees doesn’t influence her. Straight faced and irony free.

I love it all, but most of what we see and hear is about nothing of substance. The media covers the horse race and not the issues. The media want an argument not a policy or outcome. Most of what politicians and media talk about is numbers and polls, and they stay away from issues (too divisive) or actual policies (too easy to pick apart). They are risk averse and reason averse.

Watching this election is like the Super Bowl. It’s about sports and violence. It’s about winning and losing. It’s about the spectacle. Lost are the people—the football players with broken bones, broken bodies and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.

Watching politics may be entertaining, but it is cotton candy and empty calories. Where are the people? When will we discuss not just Flint but the poisonous lead infrastructure and the polluted aquifers all across this nation? Where is a real discussion of air pollution and the actual social and human costs of mining and burning coal and other carbon-based fuels?

Where is an in-depth discussion of homelessness? It is an issue in Los Angeles, in Orange County, in America. Mostly the homeless don’t die in our wet winter streets as in the east. But far too many do die—wet, cold and alone. We lump them together as “the homeless.” But that is far too simple and simplistic. There are single parents without a place to live because the job went away. They don’t have the money for first month’s rent and security deposit. How will they catch up? There are also addicted people and mentally ill people—some of whom want help and some, maddeningly to many, refuse help.

These are all different populations of people, who have different needs. But they are all human beings and not one of them dreamed in their youth of this terrible reality. Most of us walk around them or step over them. We sometimes cross the street to avoid them. We do know that “something must be done,” if for no other reason than they’re bad for business. Can’t attract customers with homeless people blocking the doorways.

We don’t want “affordable housing” in good neighborhoods. We don’t want shelters in any neighborhoods. We want to sweep them off our streets. Our government, at times, tries to solve the problem by criminalizing poverty. “If you sit, you’ll get a ticket.” “Sleep on the sidewalk and get your stuff thrown out and you may incur a fine.”

With the technological ability to deliver the best medicine in the world, we deliver the most expensive, however without the best outcomes. There are still people who have to go into bankruptcy, who lose their homes, who must get divorced to qualify for life-saving medical care. This is outrageous. Can we have some true family values here?

On the world stage, the candidates spout mostly nonsense about the Middle East, show no understanding of tribalism in Iraq, Syria or Libya and pretend that all that is needed is “leadership” to get nations and tribes to fight where we want them to fight and to stop fighting where we want them to stop. My greatest hope is that the politicians know how much they don’t know. Because, if they are really expressing their beliefs that they have competent and coherent plans, we are truly lost.

But, yes, I confess, I love politics. It does make a difference who gets elected. The Supreme Court is reason enough for everyone to vote—liberal or conservative. They will examine and implement the difficult and complex social issues that our politicians fear to engage.